Levitical Atonement

Darrin Belousek argues in Atonement, Justice, and Peace that “penal substitution is inadequate to explain the textual evidence concerning the several rituals of atonement-making” (177).

He’s right. Sin offerings were done in cases where sin is not at issue. Following Jacob Milgrom and others, he points out that the rites of the “sin” offering are directed toward the sancta, the holy things of the sanctuary. The blood of sin offerings purges the furnishings of God’s dwelling and consecrates them to remain in the presence of the holy God: “The effect of making atonement is purgation from uncleanness; and the purpose that what is so purged may be kept separate from uncleanness” (178). 

He puts it strongly: The sacrifices have nothing to do with propitiating or appeasing wrath. But that doesn’t mean that they have nothing to do with wrath. Yahweh gave these rituals “to deal with sin and transgression in order to remove pollution from God’s house, lest God reject the sanctuary because of uncleanness” (179). If allowed to accumulate, pollutions would “provoke God’s wrath with calamitous consequences for the covenant community” (180). 

Sacrifices don’t propitiate present wrath, Belousek claims, but avert future wrath. He adds that averting wrath and appeasing God “are not the same thing” (180).

Fair enough. But there is a significant gap in Belousek’s analysis, especially given his desire to “make sense of all the evidence” (177, emphasis added). He never reckons in any detail with the fact that sacrificial animals are killed. He knows they are killed, of course, and he rebuts those like Leon Morris who claims that the fact that the animal is killed by the worshiper supports a penal substitution interpretation. He argues that the burn and peace offerings don’t have anything to do with penal substitution and yet the worshiper lays his hand on the animal and kills him (188). But as to why the animal would need to die in order to bring atonement, he offers no explanation at all. He is content to say that it is not a matter of penal substitution.

Let’s leave the larger question of penal substitution to the side. Even on Belousek’s understanding, purgation demands death and we need an explanation of killing in the courts of God’s house. And it’s not surprising that many have turned back to Genesis 2-3 and looked forward to Romans 6 for explanation.